If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Yo China, we respect your first carrier landing in November, and we're gonna let you finish, but today the US is making the best unmanned carrier landing OF ALL TIME   (reuters.com) divider line 54
    More: Spiffy, navies, anti-ship missile, aviation, X-47B, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, General Atomics, autonomous robot, naval air station  
•       •       •

7056 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 May 2013 at 10:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 10:22:08 AM  
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that an unmanned plane will make a landing on a carrier today. I don't believe any nation has unmanned carriers... yet.
 
2013-05-14 10:27:09 AM  
How many scripts do I have to enable to read this?
 
2013-05-14 10:30:26 AM  

Lucubrationist: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that an unmanned plane will make a landing on a carrier today. I don't believe any nation has unmanned carriers... yet.


You're wrong! The carrier is unmanned and will be landing on a shallow coral reef
 
2013-05-14 10:40:49 AM  
If this is a success and it can do 90% of an F-35B (Which can not yet land on the same aircraft carrier) and at 1/3 the price, the choice is obvious:

Scrap that unmanned godless thing and keep buliding F-35B!
 
2013-05-14 11:00:47 AM  
This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.
 
2013-05-14 11:28:12 AM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


It's making approaches today, which is a step. It made a land based arrested landing not long ago.

jntaylor63: If this is a success and it can do 90% of an F-35B (Which can not yet land on the same aircraft carrier) and at 1/3 the price, the choice is obvious:

Scrap that unmanned godless thing and keep buliding F-35B!


It's just a demonstrator.
 
2013-05-14 11:32:47 AM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


I'm pretty sure it lands.  Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.

I mean "technically" those land too, but are a bit less reuseable
 
2013-05-14 11:35:29 AM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


I dub thee, Sir Buzzkillington.

/You're not wrong though
 
2013-05-14 11:43:28 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

I'm pretty sure it lands.  Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.

I mean "technically" those land too, but are a bit less reuseable


Pretty sure unmanned landings were being referred to. And I'd like to see those happen pretty soon. I wonder how that thing will handle pitching deck?
 
2013-05-14 11:44:15 AM  
I'd hate to find out that our Taiwanese electronics are falling behind their Taiwanese electronics.
 
2013-05-14 11:46:04 AM  

jntaylor63: If this is a success and it can do 90% of an F-35B (Which can not yet land on the same aircraft carrier) and at 1/3 the price, the choice is obvious:

Scrap that unmanned godless thing and keep buliding F-35B!


Hate to be that guy, but the F-35C is the naval variant. The B is for the Marines and has already made several landings at sea.
 
2013-05-14 11:59:44 AM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


Assuming the drone would launch from outside the range of a "carrier-killer" weapon like China's DF-21D, it's only going to have enough fuel to cover about 300-400 miles once it reaches anything that might be a target. If they're using it as a countermeasure for anti-ship missiles, this version of the UCAS won't be landing anywhere near a US carrier.

Then again, if we're going in and blowing up Chinese strategic weapons or radar, getting our toy back is probably low on the priority list.
 
2013-05-14 12:08:57 PM  

jl811: DoBeDoBeDo: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

I'm pretty sure it lands.  Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.

I mean "technically" those land too, but are a bit less reuseable

Pretty sure unmanned landings were being referred to. And I'd like to see those happen pretty soon. I wonder how that thing will handle pitching deck?


Considering the pitching and rolling frequency of a huge carrier versus the response frequency of a small UAV.  I think it will be fine.  The hardest part in these things is always keeping the target in view, however that's done.  When you get toe smaller ships, then it becomes a bigger issue.  I don't see that happening with a carrier.
 
2013-05-14 12:21:31 PM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


I've got my power glove and I've been watching angry video game nerd. Today's my lucky day.
 
2013-05-14 12:25:15 PM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


They landed one with a tailhook last week at pax on a landing strip with a section marked out as the carrier deck that had arrester gear.  You can see the video here:

http://www.navaldrones.com/X-47B.html
 
2013-05-14 12:35:51 PM  

maverickzy: jl811: DoBeDoBeDo: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

I'm pretty sure it lands.  Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.

I mean "technically" those land too, but are a bit less reuseable

Pretty sure unmanned landings were being referred to. And I'd like to see those happen pretty soon. I wonder how that thing will handle pitching deck?

Considering the pitching and rolling frequency of a huge carrier versus the response frequency of a small UAV.  I think it will be fine.  The hardest part in these things is always keeping the target in view, however that's done.  When you get toe smaller ships, then it becomes a bigger issue.  I don't see that happening with a carrier.


I think you're probably right. I've been on deck in 40+ foot seas, and our guys could still land. With a lot of difficulty, but they were still able. You wouldn't believe just how much the ocean will chuck even a Nimitz class carrier around like a toy. I think we should tow one of our decommissioned carriers out into rough seas and have this thing do touch and go's, but I'm pretty sure the Navy knows how they're going to test it.
 
2013-05-14 12:39:50 PM  

jl811: maverickzy: jl811: DoBeDoBeDo: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

I'm pretty sure it lands.  Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.

I mean "technically" those land too, but are a bit less reuseable

Pretty sure unmanned landings were being referred to. And I'd like to see those happen pretty soon. I wonder how that thing will handle pitching deck?

Considering the pitching and rolling frequency of a huge carrier versus the response frequency of a small UAV.  I think it will be fine.  The hardest part in these things is always keeping the target in view, however that's done.  When you get toe smaller ships, then it becomes a bigger issue.  I don't see that happening with a carrier.

I think you're probably right. I've been on deck in 40+ foot seas, and our guys could still land. With a lot of difficulty, but they were still able. You wouldn't believe just how much the ocean will chuck even a Nimitz class carrier around like a toy. I think we should tow one of our decommissioned carriers out into rough seas and have this thing do touch and go's, but I'm pretty sure the Navy knows how they're going to test it.


The software for the X-47B's landing system has already been tested using Super Hornets.

http://defensetech.org/2011/07/07/navy-one-step-closer-to-uav-carrie r- ops/
 
2013-05-14 12:42:47 PM  

jntaylor63: If this is a success and it can do 90% of an F-35B (Which can not yet land on the same aircraft carrier) and at 1/3 the price, the choice is obvious:

Scrap that unmanned godless thing and keep buliding F-35B!


The -B model should have no problem on the carrier being VTOL and all. The -C model is the one with the arrestor hook that doesn't.
 
2013-05-14 12:46:40 PM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


F-18's are so difficult to launch off of a carrier it's done by computer. The pilot must raise his right hand to show that it's off the stick before the shooter will launch. The onboard computer handles the first 15 secs or so of flight.
 
2013-05-14 12:47:28 PM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


Well, yeah, who cares about landing... pfffft....
 
2013-05-14 01:06:19 PM  

Spade: jl811: maverickzy: jl811: DoBeDoBeDo: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

I'm pretty sure it lands.  Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.

I mean "technically" those land too, but are a bit less reuseable

Pretty sure unmanned landings were being referred to. And I'd like to see those happen pretty soon. I wonder how that thing will handle pitching deck?

Considering the pitching and rolling frequency of a huge carrier versus the response frequency of a small UAV.  I think it will be fine.  The hardest part in these things is always keeping the target in view, however that's done.  When you get toe smaller ships, then it becomes a bigger issue.  I don't see that happening with a carrier.

I think you're probably right. I've been on deck in 40+ foot seas, and our guys could still land. With a lot of difficulty, but they were still able. You wouldn't believe just how much the ocean will chuck even a Nimitz class carrier around like a toy. I think we should tow one of our decommissioned carriers out into rough seas and have this thing do touch and go's, but I'm pretty sure the Navy knows how they're going to test it.

The software for the X-47B's landing system has already been tested using Super Hornets.

http://defensetech.org/2011/07/07/navy-one-step-closer-to-uav-carrie r- ops/


Thanks for the link, I had no idea. That's extremely cool. We should but that on all of our carrier aircraft. Just in case.
 
2013-05-14 01:34:34 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.


Wait until they come out with bold arial devices.
 
2013-05-14 01:35:28 PM  
I don't see what the big deal with unmanned lands are anyway.  Assuming you have worked out the control system it doesn't matter if the pilot sits in the plane or on a couch hundreds of miles away.  Most modern commercial planes can land automatically, all the pilot really needs to do is engage the landing gear and even in a manual landing you rely more on instruments than the pilot's vision.
 
2013-05-14 01:43:29 PM  
You know we did this 50 years ago right ? Not the first time for unmanned aircraft launching from a carrier, maybe the first time for THOSE drones but certainly not the first time for unmanned aircraft ever.
 
2013-05-14 02:08:09 PM  

mcreadyblue: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

F-18's are so difficult to launch off of a carrier it's done by computer. The pilot must raise his right hand to show that it's off the stick before the shooter will launch. The onboard computer handles the first 15 secs or so of flight.


That's not even almost believable.
 
2013-05-14 02:16:11 PM  

amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.


The article mentioned potential takeoffs and landings this week. I don't see how landing are still years away since they already demonstrated on the ground that it can do an arrested landings.
 
2013-05-14 02:26:24 PM  

Tobin_Lam: mcreadyblue: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

F-18's are so difficult to launch off of a carrier it's done by computer. The pilot must raise his right hand to show that it's off the stick before the shooter will launch. The onboard computer handles the first 15 secs or so of flight.

That's not even almost believable.


It's not that the F-18 is difficult to fly. It's the fact the plan is experiencing a high-G load on launch. The F-18 uses a HOTAS style control system (hands-on-throttle-and-stick), and if the pilots hands were yanked backwards it would be a signal for the plane to chock power and climb at the same time. (Not a good combination.)

As the plane has a ton of smarts to handle the fly-by-wire controls anyway, it was simplest to just add launch automation to the avionics. The F-35C will probably do something similar.
 
2013-05-14 02:30:34 PM  
 
2013-05-14 02:39:13 PM  

Tobin_Lam: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

The article mentioned potential takeoffs and landings this week. I don't see how landing are still years away since they already demonstrated on the ground that it can do an arrested landings.


Vid of arrested landing, at NAS Pax River.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84oAUjA8ms
 
2013-05-14 02:43:02 PM  

Spade: jl811: maverickzy: jl811: DoBeDoBeDo: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

I'm pretty sure it lands.  Unmanned arial devices that don't land are just tipped with explosives and called missiles or bombs depending on delivery system.

I mean "technically" those land too, but are a bit less reuseable

Pretty sure unmanned landings were being referred to. And I'd like to see those happen pretty soon. I wonder how that thing will handle pitching deck?

Considering the pitching and rolling frequency of a huge carrier versus the response frequency of a small UAV.  I think it will be fine.  The hardest part in these things is always keeping the target in view, however that's done.  When you get toe smaller ships, then it becomes a bigger issue.  I don't see that happening with a carrier.

I think you're probably right. I've been on deck in 40+ foot seas, and our guys could still land. With a lot of difficulty, but they were still able. You wouldn't believe just how much the ocean will chuck even a Nimitz class carrier around like a toy. I think we should tow one of our decommissioned carriers out into rough seas and have this thing do touch and go's, but I'm pretty sure the Navy knows how they're going to test it.

The software for the X-47B's landing system has already been tested using Super Hornets.

http://defensetech.org/2011/07/07/navy-one-step-closer-to-uav-carrie r- ops/


Interesting read, for sure.  It's important to keep in mind the difference in the control dynamics of the two vehicles though.  An F-18 probably would not have the same kind of response that this smaller UAV would based on size of controls surface, weight, and other inertial characteristics.
 
2013-05-14 02:46:23 PM  

Tobin_Lam: mcreadyblue: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

F-18's are so difficult to launch off of a carrier it's done by computer. The pilot must raise his right hand to show that it's off the stick before the shooter will launch. The onboard computer handles the first 15 secs or so of flight.

That's not even almost believable.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpozIzjuYKc

Here's a video of it.  Notice around 41 seconds in, the pilot reaches up with his right hand and grabs a hand-hold for the launch.
 
2013-05-14 02:58:46 PM  
bulk.destructoid.com
 
2013-05-14 03:08:06 PM  

Faddy: I don't see what the big deal with unmanned lands are anyway.  Assuming you have worked out the control system it doesn't matter if the pilot sits in the plane or on a couch hundreds of miles away.  Most modern commercial planes can land automatically, all the pilot really needs to do is engage the landing gear and even in a manual landing you rely more on instruments than the pilot's vision.


The X-47B is not a remotely operated drone, there is no pilot in the loop.  The plane is flying itself.
 
2013-05-14 03:24:54 PM  

sabreWulf07: Faddy: I don't see what the big deal with unmanned lands are anyway.  Assuming you have worked out the control system it doesn't matter if the pilot sits in the plane or on a couch hundreds of miles away.  Most modern commercial planes can land automatically, all the pilot really needs to do is engage the landing gear and even in a manual landing you rely more on instruments than the pilot's vision.

The X-47B is not a remotely operated drone, there is no pilot in the loop.  The plane is flying itself.

media.liveauctiongroup.net
 
2013-05-14 04:17:39 PM  

Tobin_Lam: mcreadyblue: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

F-18's are so difficult to launch off of a carrier it's done by computer. The pilot must raise his right hand to show that it's off the stick before the shooter will launch. The onboard computer handles the first 15 secs or so of flight.

That's not even almost believable.


watch videos of F-18 carrier shots. The pilot salutes, then grabs the "towel racks" on either side of the windshield before the catapult launches the plane. It's to keep the acceleration from making the pilot accidentally pull back on the throttle to idle, and to keep them from pulling back on the stick too far before he had enough airspeed.
 
2013-05-14 04:24:47 PM  

meanmutton: Tobin_Lam: mcreadyblue: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

F-18's are so difficult to launch off of a carrier it's done by computer. The pilot must raise his right hand to show that it's off the stick before the shooter will launch. The onboard computer handles the first 15 secs or so of flight.

That's not even almost believable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpozIzjuYKc

Here's a video of it.  Notice around 41 seconds in, the pilot reaches up with his right hand and grabs a hand-hold for the launch.


That's pretty cool but 15 seconds seems excessive. It'd be easy to automate but it seems like the first couple seconds are the only crazy part.
 
2013-05-14 04:29:46 PM  
i2.ytimg.com
Soon
 
2013-05-14 04:37:10 PM  
Fortunately, and as recent news headlines demonstrate, we can trust the government to never use this in a wrongful way and then pretend to not be able to figure out who ordered it to do what it did.
 
2013-05-14 04:44:30 PM  
It took off just fine but I wish they had been brave and attempted a carrier landing. Instead, it just flew across the bay and landed on dry land.
 
2013-05-14 05:00:58 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Fortunately, and as recent news headlines demonstrate, we can trust the government to never use this in a wrongful way and then pretend to not be able to figure out who ordered it to do what it did.


Mainly UAV's avoid the Gary Power's problem.   It won't let you escape being culpable for an attack by blaming it on an automated drone ...that you carried, armed, and launched at someone.
Whether there's a pilot or not won't change the fact we've killed people. Its how the media decides to report on it (and how other nations respond) that matters.

/If everyone decides to give the sitting president a pass on everything he does, it wouldn't matter if he sent templars on horseback to do the deed.
 
2013-05-14 05:26:51 PM  
jntaylor63


If this is a success and it can do 90% of an F-35B

*snicker* how do percents work in your world?
 
2013-05-14 05:46:49 PM  

Dinodork: jntaylor63: If this is a success and it can do 90% of an F-35B (Which can not yet land on the same aircraft carrier) and at 1/3 the price, the choice is obvious:

Scrap that unmanned godless thing and keep buliding F-35B!

The -B model should have no problem on the carrier being VTOL and all. The -C model is the one with the arrestor hook that doesn't.


It's actually STOVL. Can't take off vertically.
 
2013-05-14 08:03:09 PM  
Best overall carrier landing OF ALL TIME:

www.theaviationzone.com
 
2013-05-14 08:05:09 PM  

waterrockets: Dinodork: jntaylor63: If this is a success and it can do 90% of an F-35B (Which can not yet land on the same aircraft carrier) and at 1/3 the price, the choice is obvious:

Scrap that unmanned godless thing and keep buliding F-35B!

The -B model should have no problem on the carrier being VTOL and all. The -C model is the one with the arrestor hook that doesn't.

It's actually STOVL. Can't take off vertically.


Well it possibly could. With no meaningful payload and a bit of a headwind.
 
2013-05-14 08:20:45 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Best overall carrier landing OF ALL TIME:

[www.theaviationzone.com image 640x700]


No...
There is another.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

/The dragon lady is a beast to land on a good day.
/Sure, lets take the show out to see and try to catch a wire.
 
2013-05-14 08:30:42 PM  

way south: UNC_Samurai: Best overall carrier landing OF ALL TIME:

[www.theaviationzone.com image 640x700]

No...
There is another.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 800x531]

/The dragon lady is a beast to land on a good day.
/Sure, lets take the show out to see and try to catch a wire.


I wouldn't be as worried about a U-2 catching the wire wrong and taking out the island, though.
 
2013-05-14 10:23:48 PM  

mcreadyblue: amoral: This is only a launch. Unmanned landings are still years away.

F-18's are so difficult to launch off of a carrier it's done by computer. The pilot must raise his right hand to show that it's off the stick before the shooter will launch. The onboard computer handles the first 15 secs or so of flight.


What? No. F-18 pilots go hands-off to decrease the likelihood a somatogravic illusion will cause anyone to fly a really expensive piece of kit into the water. Look up "false climb" or "head-up" illusions.
 
2013-05-14 10:26:33 PM  
U.S.S. Iowa would like a word.
olive-drab.com
 
2013-05-15 05:56:45 AM  

way south: UNC_Samurai: Best overall carrier landing OF ALL TIME:

[www.theaviationzone.com image 640x700]

No...
There is another.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 800x531]

/The dragon lady is a beast to land on a good day.
/Sure, lets take the show out to see and try to catch a wire.


That probably wasn't incredibly difficult. If the carrier was going into a decent headwind, the speed difference between the carrier and the U-2 would be pretty small. The C-130 is a much bigger plane.
 
2013-05-15 06:29:18 AM  

Tobin_Lam: way south: UNC_Samurai: Best overall carrier landing OF ALL TIME:

[www.theaviationzone.com image 640x700]

No...
There is another.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 800x531]

/The dragon lady is a beast to land on a good day.
/Sure, lets take the show out to see and try to catch a wire.

That probably wasn't incredibly difficult. If the carrier was going into a decent headwind, the speed difference between the carrier and the U-2 would be pretty small. The C-130 is a much bigger plane.




The herc was bigger, but the U2 is an extremely ungainly aircraft , especially when it comes to landings.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report